The nature and meaning of occupational engagement for forensic clients living in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the nature and meaning of occupational engagement for individuals diagnosed with a major mental illness, charged with committing a crime according to the Criminal Code of Canada, and living in the community. Criterion sampling was used to ensure that all participants experienced the phenomenon in question and were able to provide descriptions of their experience of the phenomenon. Ten participants, 5 males and 5 females were interviewed using an interview guide. Descriptive phenomenological methods adapted from those described by Giorgi (2003; 2005) were used in data analysis. Trustworthiness was ensured via triangulation, peer review, clarification of researcher's biases, member check, and thick rich descriptions. The overall structure of the nature and meaning of occupational engagement for forensic outpatients living in the community consisted of four essences: doing the right thing, connecting with others, importance of freedom and responsibility, and meeting the challenges to occupational engagement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".